Is This What It Is All About?

Your concerns about Vlaams Belang/Blok and the Sverigedemokraterna are totally justified.

In May, Paul Belien wrote as follows in the Washington Times: "Europe is in the middle of a three-way culture war between the defenders of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, the proponents of secular hedonism and the forces of Islamic Jihadism."

”Secular hedonism” is plainly his term for secular liberalism. Plainly he identifies with what he calls ”traditional Judeo-Christian morality.” And the structure of his sentence suggests that for him both ”secular hedonism” and ”Islamic Jihadism” are equal enemies.

And what about those of us who foolishly think this is a war for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY? Are we just supposed to sit back and shut up and take orders from a bunch of little Euro-fascists?

I would ban the VB [Vlaams Belang] because it hardly differs from the Hofstad group [a Jihadist terror network in the Netherlands, involved in the assassination of Theo van Gogh]. Though the VB members have not committed any violent crimes yet, they are just postponing them and waiting until they have an absolute majority. On many issues they have exactly the same opinions as the Muslim extremists: on the position of women, on the suppression of gays, on abortion. This way of thinking will lead straight to genocide.

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

PS The comments on this website are unmoderated. However, we are being attacked by Johnson's website because we tolerate comments with which we do not agree. Hence, a question to our readers: Should we close down the comment section or should we stå på?

With all due respect, in consideration of the fact that only secularism is tolerant enough to allow people of all sorts of ethnicities and "walks of life" to live freely - and the fact that the secularized societies have produced much more civility than religious societies - it is clear that secularism, not religion, is the answer. The divisive, ethnically biased religions ruling the world today are not the answer, as is evidenced by the history of the past several thousand years.

That being said, to secularize - and thus civilize - the Islamic world would be a task not even God could accomplish, so at this point, in consideration of the huge Islamic threat worldwide, ALL non-Muslims will need to band together to push back this destruction of civilization. We still have the numbers, but Europeans must have the GUTS to stop accommodating every sleazy culture that shows up on its doorstep and makes demands.

And speaking of sleazy, grotesque displays such as in the picture on this blog post do not help the cause at all. In fact, they totally turn off would-be supporters of human rights and freedoms such as me. If given the choice, "old-timers" will likely side with Islamists against such behavior - and that fact may in part be fueling European capitulation to Islam. In this regard, it isn't secularism that is the problem - it's what we do with it. An enlightened society lives and lets lives - but not to the point where it destroys itself or allows devious outsiders and predators to do it.

What Yitzak, and most Europeans today, NO LONGER understand is that politics is always about power. And if one allows politicians to ban presumed "silly nonsense propaganda", then they will always be tempted to declare inconvenient criticism as....."silly nonsense propaganda". The cycle is then complete: they pass laws to ban something subjective and abstract (like racism, hate, etc...) - as opposed to concrete actions - and then have their appointees (in the Executive and Judiciary branches) declare 'outsider' criticism as such. And hence they 'control' public opinion, in the sense that they set what is allowed on the political agenda (i.e. their presumed strengths) and what is not (their political weakness).

Previous generations of Europeans knew this very well. And millions of them have died, during and after the European 'Enlightenment', in order to achieve freedom of speech as a - if not 'the' - cardinal principle in their constitutions.

You and I, we agree that recent generations have forgotten this, because they have become 'spoiled' under the Postwar (WW2) Pax Americana. It is for similar and comparable reasons that parents would be well advised not to 'spoil' their dependent children. It undermines their sense of reality and moral duty of self-responsibility.

Of course, restricting free speech in a private setting (including private websites) is not exactly comparable to government violations of the constitutional principle of free (political) speech. Because government has a monopoly on police and judicial power, and because these private 'owners' can be subject to 'undemocratic' legislation in an authoritarian or semi-authoritarian political system. But, it is a step in the wrong direction...

Yitzhak wrote: "Freedom of speech doesn’t mean free pass to silly nonsense propaganda." As an American, I must insist that, in fact, freedom of speech does mean -- among much else -- giving a free pass to the expression of silly nonsense propaganda. Thank God for the first amendment

So is there green cheese on the moon? If there is green cheese and white cheese went there in overwhelming numbers so as to take over green cheese sovernity, Should green cheese throw down the sword and submit at the very cry of RACIST??? I think not. Keep up the good fight Paul. You and Atlas have far more support than you could imagine.

In May, Paul Belien wrote as follows in the Washington Times:
"Europe is in the middle of a three-way culture war between the
defenders of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, the proponents of
secular hedonism and the forces of Islamic Jihadism." <dt><dt>

For some people in the western Europe this is time to realize that they already lost this battle. So they should stop with defense and start some offensive initiatives. First of all they should stop voting on post-Christian parties like UMP in France, CDU in Germany or PO/PiS in Poland. These are completely useless imitations of rightists. They are more dangerous than the worst Stalinist left one could imagine because they destroy concept of conservatism from the inside.

Mr. Belien your ban on Amsterdamsky was right thing to do Freedom of speech doesn’t mean free pass to silly nonsense propaganda. I know you would not agree with comments he post here but why give a respectable platform to nonsense propaganda? Now you remove the ban I respect your decision.

Hey, guys at BJ, you need to get a better software system than you've got now, my comments were eaten during the "preview" selection. What you have is horrible.

Charles Johnson provided a good and necessary site to aggregate the advancement of Islamofascism, never with much original content or analysis mind you. No surpise that he can't figure out the good and the bad in Europe's attempts are repelling it. From his inception, as a very immature person, he felt more comfortable with groupies. If his Kos-like minions don't drown out discussion, he will censor it.

The guy has jumped the shark in internet time, he hasn't figured it out yet. He will probably keep eyeballs that like me, until a better aggregate comes to the forefront. His Kos kid's-like comment threads are pathetic for their lack of analysis and civil democracy, a situation he will never correct.

What Johnson doesn't get is that his attack on you is being discussed over hundreds of blogs, sufficient in internet time to make him look foolish.

Vincep 1974 is dead right. Stop giving LGF power, they are so over now.

Since our readers do not seem to mind Amsterdamsky's comments we have lifted the ban and allow him to post again. Contrary to Charles Johnson, our readers realize that allowing Amsterdamsky to post here does not mean that we agree with Amsterdamsky's comments. Hence, we reinstall freedom of speech at The Brussels Journal.

Comments which violate Belgium's anti-racism legislation, however, will be deleted. According to Belgian law the simple posting of such comments makes us liable to criminal prosecution.

Mr B: "Since our readers do not seem to mind Amsterdamsky's comments we have lifted the ban and allow him to post again."

HOORAY!

Cast your mind back to the TIME OF THE CARTOONS, Mr B, and the thousands of tons of horse manure that was dumped here daily by Islamist loonies. BJ got through that, and I'm confident a few hundred FOOTBALLS aren't going to do you any lasting harm.

Since I am based in Belgium I have not other option but to run this website within the restrictions of the Belgian law. If we do not do this they can take us to court and close this website down. There is no freedom of speech in Belgium or in the EU in general. Americans do not seem to realize the state we are in.

Under Belgian law I am personally responsible for the comments posted here. If these comments are racist (or deemed to be racist) I can be taken to court for this (even if I do not agree with the comment) and I can be convicted for racism. Our judges apply the same "guilt by association" principles that LGF adheres to (and that the Communists and the Nazis adhered to).

You are not wrong. With respect to your characterization of the three struggles within Europe today...one can certainly utilize the term of secular hedonism with total-aptness. Secular hedonism is a perfect description of much of what energizes the political left, today. And you don't have to be an Einstein or a LeFebvrite in order to understand it. Secular liberalism has been effectively displaced. The days of Liberalism being a characteristic of Conservative Institutions and Values have been eclipsed by the sexual libertatrians/anarchists who need ever-more justification for the legitimization of their collective depravity. This is needed in order to attain popular sanction for their new "creed," as well as to de-stabilize the lonely remnant of the Judeo-Christian status-quo, which alone looms ominously as their ages-old obstacle to the enjoyment of full-entitlement and ultimate enthronement. There is nothing new under the sun. Up until relatively recently, a "Liberal" education was a Conservative goal for all. Nowadays, the terms of "Liberal," liberalism, etc...have been appropriated by the AMORALists amongst us, and the ultra-moralists (Islamist-totalitarians) without...utilizing similar rationales that are designed to be erosive to the core. "Secular hedonism" describes perfectly the current transmutation that has occurred in the political world viz-a-viz sex...and especially the homosexual aspect that has been so instrumental is deconstructing contemporary society. From Secular liberalism to Secular and sexual hedonism. That says it all...and if it upsets some, then just say it again, and again. This picture is disgusting, btw.

PS: DO NOT CLOSE COMMENTS, only distance yourselves from them, and refrain from posting anything personally viscious or violent, if possible.

in yet another *et tu Brute* moment, Paul Belien and BJ supporters (of which I consider myself one) might well feel some sympathy for and learn a thing or two from one Duane "Dog" Chapman. It appears that in order for Dr. Belien to properly play his role in this farce he should next perform the ritual act of public self-flogging accompanied by his lawyer. After a decent interval Dr. Belien, along with James Watson, Larry Summers, and now Duane, may resurface chastened and pure. Or at least, so goes the script. Story here, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SLG8783&show_article=1

Just for the record, I didn't propose that BJ members should be encouraged to register with LGF,only that LGF members,should they feel inclined to do so,should be welcomed to register with the BJ to discuss their differences with us.

I am Jewish and know how dire the Muslim problem is in Europe. I support all efforts you make to counter this invasion

I will keep reading LGF. Charles has his own place working against Jihad as does Robert Spencer. But I have nothing against someone like Filip DeWinter or a Paul Belien or BNP. I could care less about how Charles links you with David Duke or Vdare. You are doing great work to save Europe. I see Pamela (Atlas Shruggs) in a photo with Filip, he does not look anti Jewish to me

*** I am what you can call a realist

FWIW My people are from Russia and Poland and came to USA in 1904. My education here was as a European-American. I know what Europeans have to do to defend against Islam. Some trends look good such as in Switzerland

The LGF folks are a good bunch at heart but they are not an introspective lot. I have had plenty of disagreements with them in the past. Once twice or perhaps three times I have been called a leftist which is hilarious. But the simpletons, and yes every single popular blog has them, only see the world as black and white. Then they ask which side they should root for an away they go. I blame schools.

Btw Paul my wife and I homeschool in a last ditch attempt to have original thinking children.

I have been registered with LGF for a long time. Most blogs I regularly read and comment on LGF probably has the lowest batting percentage as far as me agreeing with. I have dissented from the prevailing winds on LGF comment threads a number times and have not received any serious flack from it. I rarely comment anymore due to the following Yogi Berra-ism: There are so many comments now, no one comments anymore.

Yeah, they lot at LGF is not highbrow no doubt about it. I like to read LGF because Charles does a good job of keeping tabs on the Krazy Kos Kiddies.

LGF comments section is Charles Johnson's very own echo chamber full of people incapable of reasoned debate and mainly concerned of patting each other in the back for their efforts. LGF and Kos Kidz need each other and deserve each other. If the fight drags on, you, VB and BJ are useful for both. I think it is self-evident who and what is the loser in this case.

So, please, Mr Belien, keep your cool and don't let yourself be provoked into doing something you might regret later. The picture in this article is of bad taste and, perhaps, should have been left out.

I am sure you cannot convince Mr Johnson to mellow down, because he is not of the type willing to compromise on anything. Besides, he's surrounded by yes men who worship him, so it is likely that he will maintain his position even if you danced on your head.

Charles Johnson is convinced that VB people are all just closet Nazis and he thinks he has proven that beyond reasonable doubt. He is not going to listen to any evidence that would prove otherwise.

I have seen several internet arguments like this. They are never civilized and the winner is not the one with the most convincing arguments, but the one who has the endurance to keep on repeating the same thing over and over until the other side gives up.

So whatever you do, don't lose your temper and do something that you might regret later.

If you decide to do something to the comment section, I suggest that you do it after careful consideration and not based on Charles Johnson's opinion.

If you have a comments section, you should have a moderation policy, which can be either strict or loose. The main thing is that moderator follows the guidelines specified in the moderation policy.

Personally, I think blog commentary is a privilege, not a right. If you want to shut down comments section, I will not complain. There are reasonable people out there that do not allow blog comments, because they provide no added value.

It probably makes sense to allow free speech, then. As for Bawer's comments: like Mimi, I admire his book, but it's strange for him to make unsubstantiated accusations of racism. When the National Critics Circle Award nominees were announced this year, the person announcing the nominees took the opportunity to accuse Bawer, who was nominated, of writing a racist-facist book. You'd think he would have learned.

I agree with marcfans suggestion about placing comments that would otherwise be banned from the site to be placed into a special section. The heading of that section could read: "The following contain comments have been banned at BJ. Please read them to use in deciding whether what you post here will be acceptable. NO further commenting on the banned comment or the commenter shall be allowed in any live threads. If you object to the banned comment or the banning of the commentator you may email the site owner and state your objections at (email address).

(Submitted by one who was recently banned at LGF for doing nothing more than asking to see someone else's supposed "racists" comments that led to the other person being banned)

I liked Bruce Bawer's book. He is a courageous person, and I respect him for that. My own views on sexuality are semi-traditional. I am not against the idea of domestic partnership and certain right that follow from it - the right to inherit, the right to visit each other in the hospital, etc... What I don't understand is why a person who is against the traditional Judeo-Christian morality would insist on the right to marry - marriage being a traditional Judeo-Christian institution. It doesn't seem consistent to me.

However, I think it's a good idea for counterjihadists not to push away the homosexual community, because we should be natural allies in the fight against islam. Am I wrong?

I have no problem with banning Amsterdamsky for a cooling off period. The concept of "free speech" does not require BJournal to pay for disk space to hold comments they disagree with. Banning Amsterdamsky as a "peace offering" to LGF to deflect their bile is unlikely to be effective.

I don't find Amsterdamsky a problem. There is only one of him. I haven't read any threads "attacked" by LGF commenters. But there are blogs I don't go to anymore because I don't like to wade through oceans of comments by idiots. If there are annoying people, it is OK by me to let them know "go create your own blog".

On a related topic, I think Charles Johnson has done a good service to our blogosphere. He sounds like an interesting guy. He has a reputation for being calm and even-tempered. (The commenters at LGF of course emphatically do not have this reputation). I am sorry to see this storm that has arisen.

Those who wish to "debate" folks on LGF: please. Go to LGF for the debate. :) If a particular debate is of interest, post a link here (or ask Mr Belien to do so). My guess is that the debate will be 90+% sh*t storm and a small amount of valuable thought. Just one opinion...

I guess I will take now my turn to answer your question and join the likes of Atheling, Atlanticist, Burke, traveller, Doney, Vincep, Arty, and...(I am sure) other sensible readers of this blog. It is not a good idea to 'censor' comments as a matter of principle.

Until 2 days ago, I had never heard of Charles Johnson, nor of "Little Green footballs", and (to paraphrase Doney) I am amazed that he/they would or could have any influence over the great work you are doing with the Brussels Journal. Let the dogs bark, while the caravan passes on its own way.

I recognize that I may not fully comprehend the practicalities of running a major blog. If you feel the need to 'interfere', in any way, with comments, of nutcases or others, a second-best solution would be to clearly indicate WHERE and WHY this has been done. Perhaps, ideally such comments could be diverted to a specific designated area (clearly marked "rejected" by the editor/webmaster). This would solve the problem of censorship and it could help promote the quality and transparency of discussions on the main blog. I doubt that many people would waste their time to read again the oneliners and (undefended or unreasoned) prejudices of certain nutcases. But the rejection of more serious commentators might prompt some to go and take a look for themselves. This might assist you in preserving your own 'accountability' to yourself.

Give Amsterdamsky another chance to redeem himself. I know that it is very unlikely, human nature being what it is, but it would help preserve the 'integrity' of this website. It would do so especially in the eyes of 'American' readers, who have no truck with Johnson-types, and who have little 'understanding' of the more European temptation (at least again in recent times) to engage in censorship. Where there is 'darkness' (of spirit), let the sun shine upon it!

I agree that banning is just conforming to PC - generally speaking. It saddens me somewhat that you took this approach. Outside of "spamming" I just don't see banning at all. If you want nothing but meme's then blogs like LGF's is your place. Long live free speech even if it is vile or disagreeable. Unsubstantiated writing or blathering is easily destroyed by those whose own thought process is not restrained by the thought police.

No, Mr. Belien, do not close down the comment section. I enjoy reading people's comments almost as much as the post itself.

While I absolutely oppose any legal or violent action taken against homosexuals for simply being "gay", I also disapprove of their flagrant behavior.

Bawer and Hirsi Ali are clueless when it comes to this. While I admire Ms. Hirsi Ali's stance against Islam and its abuse of women, she should just keep it at that. I read her memoir, and while I found it candid and enlightening, I was also sorry to see that she has very limited knowledge of Judeo Christian values and the culture it birthed.

Going to LGF to debate is not worth the effort. You would be set upon, insulted personally, have some fool make a irrelevant sarcastic comment, a few other fools repeat it, and then be banned for your trouble.

Look what happened to Fjordman. Disgraceful. And who here is more eloquent and well spoken than him? LGF has proven to be a huge disappointment. I had hoped this would blow over, but clearly LGF has escalated the situation.

I doubt anyone there has the guts to come here and actually debate here. I doubt anyone has the ability.

Keep the comments, of course. I think that some of the more eggregious comments occasionally need censoring. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to delete the offending comment, and block the person who made it from further participation in the same thread.

As for Amsterdamsky... that guy is an embarrasment to BR. People who are here regularly know that he is a local court jester, and not to be taken seriously. But a visitor who comes to this site for the first time, coming across some of the moronic stuff that Amsterdamsky posts would make BR look very bad. He contributes nothing useful, and ammunition to those who want to say that everyone here is a racist. Similarly, we had that crazy Indian woman posting enormous volumes of nutty anti-Muslim stuff as well. Why the heck did that continue for months and months. Some discretion should be exercised.

My opinion, anyway. I'm not that active posting most of the time, so I guess it does not count for much.

"Going to LGF to debate is not worth the effort. You would be set upon, insulted personally, have some fool make a irrelevant sarcastic comment, a few other fools repeat it, and then be banned for your trouble.

Look what happened to Fjordman. Disgraceful. And who here is more eloquent and well spoken than him? LGF has proven to be a huge disappointment. I had hoped this would blow over, but clearly LGF has escalated the situation. "

Yep! I got banned for writing this:

"Another day.. another report on what we've found on google today..

And then the followers all patting themselves on the back about how non-racist they are.

My God .. this is getting old.

We get it.. YOU ARE SUPERIOR.. THE LEADER AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE NOT RACIST.

DOWN DOWN WITH EVIL EUROPE

Inshallah"

For expressing my fatigue at yet another one of LGF's "Look how non-racist we are" topics. he banned me with no warning.

If you let Charles Johnson control the comment section of your blog you may as well let him edit and approve what you post too. Some people really do believe that if you disagree with them you must be a Nazi, it's sad to see that Charles is becoming one of them.

I hope you decide to keep the comments and that your commentors stick to civilized discourse. A blog without comments?? I may as well go back to reading the editorial page of my local newspaper.

There is absolutely no excuse for banning anybody, even Hitler should be allowed to write his piece from hell. Free speech is free speech, full stop. If we, as free speech defenders are banning free speech we are lost. If others attack us for our free speech they are not worth reading.

I am generally not supportive of banning unless a person stalks a site simply to ramrod unfounded accusations and diatribes. This is true of Amsterdamsky as he has never added anything meaningful to any debate here that I have seen, and it is the strangest of ironies that it is one of his blathering Jewish conspiracy comments that is highlighted on LGF to serve as an example of what goes on over here.

All this being said however, I will miss Amsterdamsky. It was fun to poke him with a sharp stick every once in a while.

if you take this stance, you do also need to challenge those comments that are beyond the pale.

If you have the facility to edit, add your own objection in the comment itself: this way the comment cannot be read or linked to in isolation of your objection to it. This doesn't need to be lengthy - it just needs to register disapproval. You can justifiy your disapproval - if that's even needed - in a later comment and link to that.

In a really really bad case, you may have to delete. I have - in two years of blogging - only ever had to delete one or possibly two comments. However, in their place, I paraphrased what the comment was attempting to say as in "I have deleted this comment from [insert commenters name] because it was suggesting [insert horrible and baseless insinuation], which is a horrible and baseless insinuation with which I will have no truck.

You are at liberty to attempt to defend yourself if you think I have misinterpretted you, but it had better be good. Don't for a second think that we will tolerate this sort of hateful rubbish."

Failure to do this leaves you open to some of LGF's more reasonable objections.

This might surprise some people but I fully endorse the views expressed by Eddy Burke on this issue.As far as Amsterdamsky is concerned I have never sought his banishment.However,I do believe that if he is reinstated,he needs to start defending his personal statements and opinions with a modicum of mature and intelligible counter debate.Self censorship would be my alternative suggestion.

Yesterday evening we removed two comments from Amsterdamsky in which he spoke of "Zionists on the Israeli payroll" with regard to Little Green Footballs. We consider it an insult to Zionists to compared them to the LGF people. We have also blocked Amsterdamsky's account so that he can no longer post comments here, but this can be reversed.

I know that our readers know that we do not agree with every comment posted here. Unfortunately, the so-called "proponents of free speech" at LGF do not. They think that every opinion voiced in the comments is also ours and they attack us for it. Someone told me the other day that Charles Johnson used to be a liberal (or a "leftist" as Europeans would say) before he became a conservative. Apparently, the man still adheres to the Stalinist (or Nazi) methods of the past. One of these Stalinist (or Nazi) principles is the principle of guilt by association.

Paul: why shut down Amsterdamsky? I vote for letting him back in although I usually do not agree with him; and his comment about Zionist was a silly, oh-so-European, cliché that was not very smart nor founded. So? A website like yours SHOULD be able to stir up the controversy and make the juices flow, no? When I read him, or that other "moron", Peter Vanderheyden, yeah, I sure feel my toes curl and my blood pressure go up, but hey, that's what free speech is all about.

Regarding Bruce's comment on LGF: when are some people going to understand that "individual liberty" and "judeo-christian heritage" are not mutually exclusive but that one (the latter) is the pre-condition for the other (individual liberty)? When are they going to understand that by undermining our judeo-christian heritage, the "individual libertarians" are cutting off the branch on which they are sitting? And when will they see that defending the judeo-christian heritage does not mean that such defenders want everyone being dragged to church, Rome or the synagogue?

I think they are uneducated idiots!! (oops, I hope I am not going to be blocked now too!) :-)

Until now, the thing I appreciated the most at the BJ was the fact that they never touched any of my postings. And I must confess, sometimes I attacked Paul Beliën frontally (accusing him of racism.) At least the BJ was consequent in its fight for “free speech”. All that is suddenly finished. As so often in history, those fighting for change sooner or later betray their own principles in an attempt to keep a deemed satisfactory position within society. The BJ gained some recognition within conservative circles. One bit of critic coming out of this circle, and the BJ revokes all it’s principles in a pathetic attempt to keep the approval of it’s peers. Banning Amsterdamski because of blatant anti-Semite expression is at the least hypocrite, considering the overwhelming majority of incredible racist hate columns printed here against people of the Islamic faith. But never mind that. Above all it’s an enormous impoverishment of the BJ, as it evicts one of its most colorful participants.

"Banning Amsterdamski because of blatant anti-Semite expression is at the least hypocrite, considering the overwhelming majority of incredible racist hate columns printed here against people of the Islamic faith"

Give me a break. Comparing Amsterdamsky's obsessive, unsubstantiated and irrelevant remarks which ALWAYS finds a way to blame Jews to the substantiated, justified and reasonable criticisms of Islam's violence and intolerance is unreasonable.

By the way, Islam is not a race. It's a religion, so calling it "racist" to criticize Islam is incorrect.

Who we are

The Brussels Journal is written by Europeans, living in as well as outside Europe. The Brussels Journal is published by the Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE), a Swiss non-profit organisation.